Who's getting (70-300mm L )

Maybe wait and check the price on that one before you say "for sure".

windpig wrote in post #10807276
Not I. I've got the 400mm f5.6 and the 70-200 F4 IS. I'm thinking of the 300mm F4, that speed with 2 stop IS would fit better for me.

I also had the 70-200mm f4 IS and the 400mm 5.6. I later bought the 300mm f/4 and it was a perfect fit. I love having both the 300mm and the 400mm. They both get used a lot!

I'm in the "too slow" camp, sorry Canon, I'll keep my 70-200 2.8 and 100-400

MP4/8 wrote in post #10807503
Nah...
The 4-5.6 aperture is completely usable (same as the 100-400). And with a 4 stop IS, outdoor shooting at low ISO's with a decent shutter speed, will be a breeze.

If they came out with a constant f/4, I think it would have been a whole lot better, and imagine if they made it an f/2.8. It would be a monster lens.

.

Yes but being able to go to 400mm made it easier for me to accept that it was not a constant aperture. Its a little harder to accept when it just goes to 300mm.

Unless this thing is just mindblowing with the first reviews, its not on my list.

NeoTokyo wrote in post #10807805
Yes but being able to go to 400mm made it easier for me to accept that it was not a constant aperture. Its a little harder to accept when it just goes to 300mm.

I know what you mean. Considering they were able to get a constant f/4 with the 70-200.

Conversely, it's because the 100-400 was a 4-5.6 that it didn't bother me as much about the varying aperture of the 70-300 IS.

Ideally, I'd like to be able to go out to 400 with a zoom. 300mm is a little shorter than I'd like. But, I was never keen on the size and weight, of the 100-400.

If the 70-300 L is quite a bit sharper than my 70-300, and approaches the 70-200 f/2.8's, then I'll probably get it simply due to it's compactness over the 100-400.

I'm not keen on either lenses' white paint job, whatsoever.

.

I'm torn between this one and the Sigma 100-300 f4. I'll wait to see how it performs, but I will get of those two.

Wide open is ƒ/4 - 5.6, no thanks.

It really is a bizarre choice for Canon to have made, IMO. It certainly isn't going to be at the top of MY list, I'd rather spend the money on the two, new TCs for my 70-200.

I guess I could see it being a nice, high quality upgrade for a lot of the casual, family and travel shooters out there.

You'll have to let us know what you think when you get one

I don't see any reason to get one when I have the 70-200 f2.8. Though if the image quality is good could be an option vs the 70-200 f4. Now if the retail price ended up as $800 then might be a much more interesting lens.

I agree with the others who said it would be much more appealing if it was constant f/4. A teleconverter on my 70-200 makes more sense for me.

Don't you lose 1 full stop of aperture with the x1.4 and 2 full stops with the x2, as well as slow down the AF?

And what about sharpness? I've read that with the x2 it's soft out at 400mm.

.

kingbob734 wrote in post #10807735
They should make a 100-400mm F/4 and ill buy that for sure :O

nikon's 200-400/f4 is only $7k!

MP4/8 wrote in post #10808625
Don't you lose 1 full stop of aperture with the x1.4 and 2 full stops with the x2, as well as slow down the AF?

And what about sharpness? I've read that with the x2 it's soft out at 400mm.

.

Yes, you do lose those stops with the TCs, but that just means that you've stopped down to an equivalent of the 70-300, effectively. In the older 70-200s I've heard they're a bit soft at 400mm with the 2x; but they're still sharp at 280mm with the 1.4. The newer version is still sharp even with the 2x TC; although the AF is slowed down.

If a person doesn't already OWN one of the longer telephotos, and doesn't want/need the speed or subject isolation of the larger aperture, this lens might be a sufficient upgrade from, say, the 55-250...but otherwise, I think it's just a strange lens to have added to the lineup.

I think this lens makes as much sense as the F4's. I mean if you get the 200 f4 you have already said you don't really need subject isolation or low light options and probably want a lighter smaller lens. So then it becomes 200mm @ f4, or a super sharp 300mm in lens. You can't think Canon is going to release a $1500 L lens that is softer at 300mm than a F4 IS is at 280 with a TC. And the 70-200 f2.8 is now $2400, so not really in the same game anymore.

Likely not, but I've sorta considered it. Price is just a little too steep. I don't need it to be fast, so that's fine, and the range is perfect.